远程保健工具：基于应用程序的听力测试相关分析

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology Pub Date : 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1002/lio2.1255

David Adkins MD, Anthea Phuong MD, Jennifer Shinn PhD, Trey Cline AuD, Jordan Hyland MD, Matthew L. Bush M.D., Ph.D., MBA

{"title":"远程保健工具：基于应用程序的听力测试相关分析","authors":"David Adkins MD, Anthea Phuong MD, Jennifer Shinn PhD, Trey Cline AuD, Jordan Hyland MD, Matthew L. Bush M.D., Ph.D., MBA","doi":"10.1002/lio2.1255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Telehealth evaluation of hearing is rapidly evolving; however, the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application has made hearing evaluation complicated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the pure tone audiometry results obtained from app-based hearing testing programs and a traditional audiogram.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A prospective within-subject and between-subject study design was used to correlate audiogram results between app-based hearing programs and a traditional audiogram. All participants completed a traditional audiogram, 1 commercial app-based test (ShoeBox), 2 consumer app-based tests (EarTrumpet and Hearing Test and Ear Age Test [HTEAT]), and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Testing was conducted in an acoustically controlled environment (traditional) and a quiet room (app-based hearing tests).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 39 participants were enrolled in the study (21 with normal hearing and 18 with hearing loss). In patients with normal hearing, only the commercial hearing testing app (ShoeBox) had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry (Right ear—<i>r</i> = 0.7, <i>p</i> = .005, Left ear—<i>r</i> = 0.66, <i>p</i> = .001). Both consumer and commercial apps had statistically significant correlations with both ears in patients with hearing loss (ranging from <i>r</i> = 0.62 to <i>r</i> = 0.9). Regarding accuracy within 10 dB of the pure tone average of the traditional audiogram of all tested ears, the commercial app-based test was accurate in 94% for all ears (normal and hearing loss), while consumer app-based tests were between 14% and 36% for all ears. The HHI-S indicated no hearing impairment in 95% of those with normal hearing and indicated hearing impairment in 89% of those with hearing loss.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Commercial-grade app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry. The HHI-S assessment remains a valid and useful tool to predict normal hearing and hearing impairment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>2</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48529,"journal":{"name":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lio2.1255","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tools for telehealth: A correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing\",\"authors\":\"David Adkins MD, Anthea Phuong MD, Jennifer Shinn PhD, Trey Cline AuD, Jordan Hyland MD, Matthew L. Bush M.D., Ph.D., MBA\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/lio2.1255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>Telehealth evaluation of hearing is rapidly evolving; however, the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application has made hearing evaluation complicated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the pure tone audiometry results obtained from app-based hearing testing programs and a traditional audiogram.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A prospective within-subject and between-subject study design was used to correlate audiogram results between app-based hearing programs and a traditional audiogram. All participants completed a traditional audiogram, 1 commercial app-based test (ShoeBox), 2 consumer app-based tests (EarTrumpet and Hearing Test and Ear Age Test [HTEAT]), and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Testing was conducted in an acoustically controlled environment (traditional) and a quiet room (app-based hearing tests).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 39 participants were enrolled in the study (21 with normal hearing and 18 with hearing loss). In patients with normal hearing, only the commercial hearing testing app (ShoeBox) had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry (Right ear—<i>r</i> = 0.7, <i>p</i> = .005, Left ear—<i>r</i> = 0.66, <i>p</i> = .001). Both consumer and commercial apps had statistically significant correlations with both ears in patients with hearing loss (ranging from <i>r</i> = 0.62 to <i>r</i> = 0.9). Regarding accuracy within 10 dB of the pure tone average of the traditional audiogram of all tested ears, the commercial app-based test was accurate in 94% for all ears (normal and hearing loss), while consumer app-based tests were between 14% and 36% for all ears. The HHI-S indicated no hearing impairment in 95% of those with normal hearing and indicated hearing impairment in 89% of those with hearing loss.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Commercial-grade app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry. The HHI-S assessment remains a valid and useful tool to predict normal hearing and hearing impairment.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\\n \\n <p>2</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lio2.1255\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.1255\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.1255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

远程健康听力评估正在迅速发展；然而，由于对最准确的远程听力测试应用程序缺乏共识，使得听力评估变得复杂。本研究旨在评估基于应用程序的听力测试程序获得的纯音测听结果与传统听力图之间的相关性。方法采用前瞻性受试者内和受试者间研究设计，对基于应用程序的听力测试程序和传统听力图之间的听力图结果进行相关性分析。所有参与者均完成了传统听力图、1 项商业应用程序测试（ShoeBox）、2 项消费者应用程序测试（EarTrumpet 和听力测试与耳龄测试 [HTEAT]）以及听力障碍量表筛查版 (HHI-S)。测试在声控环境（传统测试）和安静的房间内进行（基于应用程序的听力测试）。结果共有 39 人参加了研究（21 人听力正常，18 人听力损失）。在听力正常的患者中，只有商业听力测试应用程序（ShoeBox）的双耳纯音平均值与传统测听法的相关性具有统计学意义（右耳-r = 0.7，p = .005；左耳-r = 0.66，p = .001）。消费者和商业应用程序与听力损失患者双耳的相关性均具有统计学意义（从 r = 0.62 到 r = 0.9 不等）。在所有受测耳朵的传统听力图纯音平均值 10 分贝以内的准确度方面，基于商业应用程序的测试对所有耳朵（正常和听力损失）的准确度为 94%，而基于消费者应用程序的测试对所有耳朵的准确度介于 14% 和 36% 之间。在 95% 的听力正常者中，HHI-S 显示没有听力障碍，而在 89% 的听力损失者中，HHI-S 显示有听力障碍。结论基于商业级应用程序的纯音测听与传统的测听法总体上具有很强的相关性和准确性。HHI-S 评估仍然是预测正常听力和听力损伤的有效且有用的工具。证据等级 2

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Tools for telehealth: A correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing

Objective

Telehealth evaluation of hearing is rapidly evolving; however, the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application has made hearing evaluation complicated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the pure tone audiometry results obtained from app-based hearing testing programs and a traditional audiogram.

Methods

A prospective within-subject and between-subject study design was used to correlate audiogram results between app-based hearing programs and a traditional audiogram. All participants completed a traditional audiogram, 1 commercial app-based test (ShoeBox), 2 consumer app-based tests (EarTrumpet and Hearing Test and Ear Age Test [HTEAT]), and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Testing was conducted in an acoustically controlled environment (traditional) and a quiet room (app-based hearing tests).

Results

A total of 39 participants were enrolled in the study (21 with normal hearing and 18 with hearing loss). In patients with normal hearing, only the commercial hearing testing app (ShoeBox) had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry (Right ear—r = 0.7, p = .005, Left ear—r = 0.66, p = .001). Both consumer and commercial apps had statistically significant correlations with both ears in patients with hearing loss (ranging from r = 0.62 to r = 0.9). Regarding accuracy within 10 dB of the pure tone average of the traditional audiogram of all tested ears, the commercial app-based test was accurate in 94% for all ears (normal and hearing loss), while consumer app-based tests were between 14% and 36% for all ears. The HHI-S indicated no hearing impairment in 95% of those with normal hearing and indicated hearing impairment in 89% of those with hearing loss.

Conclusion

Commercial-grade app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry. The HHI-S assessment remains a valid and useful tool to predict normal hearing and hearing impairment.